| Revision as of 08:04, 9 February 2019 editCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,453,961 editsm Alter: isbn. Add: citeseerx, isbn. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | User-activated.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:20, 9 March 2024 edit undoBiogeographist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,708 edits added short description | ||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Formalisation of dialectic}} | |||
| {{For|the meaning in Hegelian and Marxist thought|Dialectical logic}} | {{For|the meaning in Hegelian and Marxist thought|Dialectical logic}} | ||
| <!-- This article's sections "History", "Defeasibility", and "Dialog games" are transcluded in ]. Do not rename sections without fixing transclusions. --> | |||
| Since the 1980s, European and American ]ians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for '''logic and dialectic''' through formalisation,<ref name="Eemeren">{{cite book |last1=Eemeren |first1=Frans H. van |last2=Garssen |first2=Bart |last3=Krabbe |first3=Erik C. W. |last4=Snoeck Henkemans |first4=A. Francisca |last5=Verheij |first5=Bart |last6=Wagemans |first6=Jean H. M. |date=2014 |title=Handbook of argumentation theory |location=New York |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=9789048194728 |oclc=871004444 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5}}</ref>{{rp|201–372}} although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times.<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|51–140}} | |||
| ] have attempted to combine ] (the science of ] inferences or of ]s) and ] (a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of ]s and counter-arguments) through ] of dialectic. These attempts include pre-formal and partially formal treatises on argument and ], systems based on ], and systems based on ] and ]. | |||
| ==History== | ==History== | ||
| There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and |
Since the late 20th century, European and American ]ians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation,<ref name="Eemeren">{{cite book |last1=Eemeren |first1=Frans H. van |author-link1=Frans H. van Eemeren |last2=Garssen |first2=Bart |last3=Krabbe |first3=Erik C. W. |last4=Snoeck Henkemans |first4=A. Francisca |last5=Verheij |first5=Bart |last6=Wagemans |first6=Jean H. M. |date=2014 |title=Handbook of argumentation theory |location=New York |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=9789048194728 |oclc=871004444 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5}}</ref>{{rp|201–372}} although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times.<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|51–140}} There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as ] (''The Uses of Argument'', 1958),<ref>{{cite book |last=Toulmin |first=Stephen |date=2003 |origyear=1958 |title=The uses of argument |edition=Updated |location=Cambridge, UK; New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521827485 |oclc=51607421 |doi=10.1017/CBO9780511840005}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Hitchcock |editor1-first=David |editor2-last=Verheij |editor2-first=Bart |date=2006 |title=Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation |series=Argumentation library |volume=10 |location=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=978-1402049378 |oclc=82229075 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5}}</ref><ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|203–256}} ] (''Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge'', 1977),<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hetherington|first=Stephen|author-link=Stephen Hetherington|title=Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics|url=https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25075-philosophical-dialectics-an-essay-on-metaphilosophy/|date=2006|journal=Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews|issue=2006.07.16}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Jacquette|editor-first=Dale|title=Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T65moyMMioYC|date=2009|location=Frankfurt|publisher=Ontos Verlag|doi=10.1515/9783110329056|isbn=9783110329056}}</ref><ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|330–336}} and ] and ] (], 1980s).<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|517–614}} One can include works of the communities of ] and ].<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|373–424}} | ||
| ==Defeasibility== | ==Defeasibility== | ||
| Building on theories of ] (see ]), systems have been built that define well-formedness of arguments, rules governing the process of introducing arguments based on fixed assumptions, and rules for shifting burden.<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|615–675}} Many of these logics appear in the special area of ], though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build ] and computer-supported collaborative work systems.<ref>For surveys of work in this area see, for example: {{cite journal |last1=Chesñevar |first1=Carlos Iván |last2=Maguitman |first2=Ana Gabriela |last3=Loui |first3=Ronald Prescott |date=December 2000 |title=Logical models of argument |journal=ACM Computing Surveys |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=337–383 |doi=10.1145/371578.371581|citeseerx=10.1.1.702.8325 }} And: {{cite book |last1=Prakken |first1=Henry |last2=Vreeswijk |first2=Gerard |date=2005 |chapter=Logics for defeasible argumentation |editor1-last=Gabbay |editor1-first=Dov M. |editor2-last=Guenthner |editor2-first=Franz |title=Handbook of philosophical logic |edition=2nd |volume=4 |location=Dordrecht; Boston |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers |pages=219–318 |isbn=9789048158775 |doi=10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3|citeseerx=10.1.1.295.2649 }}</ref> | |||
| ==Dialog games== | ==Dialog games== | ||
| {{main|Game semantics}} | {{main|Game semantics|Dialogical logic}} | ||
| Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue.{{ |
Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue.<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|301–372}} Such games can provide a ], one that is very general in applicability.<ref name="Eemeren"/>{{rp|314}} | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:20, 9 March 2024
Formalisation of dialectic For the meaning in Hegelian and Marxist thought, see Dialectical logic.Formal scientists have attempted to combine formal logic (the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths) and dialectic (a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments) through formalisation of dialectic. These attempts include pre-formal and partially formal treatises on argument and dialectic, systems based on defeasible reasoning, and systems based on game semantics and dialogical logic.
History
Since the late 20th century, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation, although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times. There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument, 1958), Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, 1977), and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (pragma-dialectics, 1980s). One can include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic.
Defeasibility
Building on theories of defeasible reasoning (see John L. Pollock), systems have been built that define well-formedness of arguments, rules governing the process of introducing arguments based on fixed assumptions, and rules for shifting burden. Many of these logics appear in the special area of artificial intelligence and law, though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build decision support and computer-supported collaborative work systems.
Dialog games
Main articles: Game semantics and Dialogical logicDialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue. Such games can provide a semantics of logic, one that is very general in applicability.
See also
References
- ^ Eemeren, Frans H. van; Garssen, Bart; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Verheij, Bart; Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5. ISBN 9789048194728. OCLC 871004444.
- Toulmin, Stephen (2003) . The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005. ISBN 978-0521827485. OCLC 51607421.
- Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart, eds. (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Argumentation library. Vol. 10. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5. ISBN 978-1402049378. OCLC 82229075.
- Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.16).
- Jacquette, Dale, ed. (2009). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783110329056. ISBN 9783110329056.
- For surveys of work in this area see, for example: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela; Loui, Ronald Prescott (December 2000). "Logical models of argument". ACM Computing Surveys. 32 (4): 337–383. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.702.8325. doi:10.1145/371578.371581. And: Prakken, Henry; Vreeswijk, Gerard (2005). "Logics for defeasible argumentation". In Gabbay, Dov M.; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of philosophical logic. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 219–318. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.295.2649. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3. ISBN 9789048158775.
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |